City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 30, 2015

 

1.       Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

 

2.         Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.      Approve Agenda                                                                 

Councilmember Laliberte requested removal of Item 8.j from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration and discussion.  Without objection, Mayor Roe moved this to Business Discussion Item 15.a.

 

Councilmember Etten requested removal of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items8.c, 8.g, and 8.k from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

4.       Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak. 

 

5.       Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

On behalf of the City Council and community of Roseville, Mayor Roe thanked sponsors of this year's holiday lights for the annual OVALumination.

 

Mayor Roe announced the second annual Roseville Business Exchange scheduled later this week providing an opportunity for area business representatives to network and share with Councilmembers, Department Heads and City staff.

 

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming American Red Cross Blood Drive on December 21, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Lexington Avenue Fire Station.  Appointments are available through www.redcross.org.

 

6.       Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

7.       Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.

 

a.    Approve November 16, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the November 16, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 17, Line 19 (Laliberte)

Change from "three" to "some"

·         Page 18, Line 35 (McGehee)

Typographical correction from "tock" to "stock"

·         Page 23, Line 3 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "response time be for a cardiac even[t] "[tin] [if] Roseville [EMT's were] [while it was] responding elsewhere.

 

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

   

9.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated November 30, 2015.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.

 

ACH Payments	687,600.48
79544-79711	473,192.40
TOTAL	$1,160,792.88

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business Licenses

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

                       

d.            Consider Update to Information Technology (IT) Shared Service Agreement with the North Suburban Access Corporation

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Shared Services Agreement (Attachment A) with the North Suburban Access Corporation for the purposes of providing IT support services.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Approve the Repurchase of 2690 Oxford Street N, Unit 224 by Anthony A. Aden from Ramsey County

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11273 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Repurchase of 2690 Oxford Street, Unit 224 by Mr. Anthony A. Aden from Ramsey County;"

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

h.            Approve the Decertification of Tax Increment  Financing (TIF) District No. 13

For comparison purposes, when setting up TIF Districts, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in knowing going forward the amount of tax coming to the City before the District was created and actual amount when decertified.  While it's nice for the value to increase, Councilmember McGehee noted that didn't always mean a transfer of actual cash dollars to the City, and that information should be something known.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City Council received an analysis from staff on each district's projection at the time of approval; but agreed with Councilmember McGehee that it would be good to circle back as she suggested.  Mayor Roe noted that the estimates provided were typically conservative.

 

Councilmember McGehee responded that it depended on what kinds of projects were included in a District and whether any properties may be coming off the tax rolls.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that when a TIF District is decertified, the City does not receive more money, but rather that property increases its share of the City tax bill relative to the rest of the city.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11274 (Attachment B) entitled, "A Resolution Relating to the Termination of Tax Increment District No. 13 and Directing Decertification Thereof by the County Auditor."

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

i.             Request by Zawadski Homes and Adele Kaufman for Approval of a Minor Subdivision to Consolidate and Recombine the Properties Addressed as 375 and 365 S Owasso Boulevard

Councilmember Willmus congratulated Mr. Zawadski and property owner Ms. Kaufman on this improvement to her property.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the consolidation, per Roseville City Code Section 1104.04C and the recombination per Roseville City Code Section 1104.04B for properties addressed as 365 and 375 S Owasso Boulevard to consolidate lots or portions thereof of Lots 7, 8 and 7, Block 1, Lake Owasso Villas into Parcel "A:" and to allow the lot line of Lot 6, Block 1, Lake Owasso Villas to shift north creating a 75-foot-wide residential parcel of land; based on the comments and findings, and conditions as outlined in the staff report dated November 30, 2015.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

l.             Accept Roseville Police Foundation Donations

Councilmember Etten thanked the Foundation for their donations, opining that this latest donation of the park patrol vehicle shed would serve that area near Villa Park well.

 

Given the activeness of this Foundation, Councilmember Laliberte requested more regular updates of their activity, particularly for knowledge by the City Council before funded projects are introduced to the general public so they could field questions and comments accordingly.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the Roseville Police Department to accept donations from the Roseville Police Foundation as outlined in the RCA.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated November 30, 2015.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she requested removal of both this item and Consent Item g for the same reason.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated previous requests she had made for a full discussion of cost benefits between the current paid on-call program of fifty firefighters and that proposed for between 18-24 full time firefighters.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the amount requested between these two items was approximately $128,000 more than if the City had its own full-time fire staff at the expected level of between 20-24 employees.  As these things go forward, Councilmember McGehee noted the City could be paying twice this amount for turnout gear or equipment, and while she wants firefighters to have the most up-to-date quality in turnout gear and equipment, as well as training, the cost difference for fifty versus twenty-four employees is significant along with their pension component.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee again requested a more thorough analysis.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated October 31, 2015.

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

f.             Approve City Council 2016 Meeting Calendar

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated November 30, 2015.

 

Councilmember Etten referenced several date conflicts with annual school events on scheduled meeting dates as presented, with one of those three easy to correct.  Councilmember Etten proposed a change in the October 2016 meeting schedule in place of the proposed October 17 Work Session; changing the meeting dates to October 3, 10 and 24 instead.

 

Since it wasn't unusual for a councilmember to miss an occasional meeting based on date conflicts, Councilmember Willmus suggested leaving the proposed schedule as listed; and closer to the dates of conflict, making a decision if and when a meeting should be changed.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted that there was no Work Session scheduled in May, with City Manager Trudgeon apologizing for that omission, and noting the May 15, 2015 meeting was intended as a Work Session. Councilmember Laliberte further noted that she anticipated the November 28, 2016 meeting would most likely serve as the public hearing for the 2017 budget and levy adoption at the subsequent meeting on December 5, 2016.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that for the last two years, the City's public hearing and Ramsey County's hearing were scheduled on the same night, and asked if staff would check if those conflicts were also possible in 2016 and if so, if an alternate date could be chosen, perhaps by holding the public hearing on December 5 and adding an additional meeting on December 12, 2016.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that could be a discussion item going forward.

 

Councilmember Willmus reiterated his suggestion to approve the calendar as presented, and adjust the schedules depending on agenda items and conflicts at that time.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus, even though she stated her willingness to change the October 2016 meeting schedule as suggested by Councilmember Etten. However, if that change was made, Councilmember McGehee noted it would mean the City Council would be meeting for five weeks in a row without break.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2016 meeting calendar as presented, but designating the May 16, 2016 meeting as a Work Session.

 

Etten moved to amend the motion to move the October 17 meeting to October 3, 2016.

 

The Mayor ruled the motion to amend failed due to lack of a second.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: Etten.

Motion carried.

 

g.            Approve Fire Department & Regions Hospital Medical Direction and Oversight Contract Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated November 30, 2015.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted her comments had previously been stated with former Consent Item 8.c

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Fire Department entering into a contract extension with Regions Hospital (Attachment A) for medical oversight and education through December 31, 2018; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

k.            Approve Hillcrest Animal Hospital Service Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated November 30, 2015.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were no veterinarian clinics in Roseville that would provide this service, opining there were several veterinarian clinics closer and more convenient to Roseville. 

 

As a pet owner and hopefully speaking for a majority of pet owners, Councilmember McGehee expressed her objection to contract clause 1.b related to euthanizing animals if unable to be impounded without serious risk; and clause 1.d disposal/sale of animals at the sole discretion of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, opining that clause needed to be altered. 

 

Mayor Roe asked staff to directly discuss how such animals are identified specific to this proposed contract language and how previous contract language had dealt with these issues.

 

Police Chief Rick Mathwig and Lt. Lorne Rosand

Lt. Rosand reported that the Brighton Veterinary Clinic, and most clinics,  are getting out of the business of housing animals as it was found to be burdensome to provide that service to municipalities.  Lt. Rosand further reported that the Police Department had searched for over a month for a clinic in the neighborhood to no avail, and found the closest clinic providing this service to be Hillcrest.  Lt. Rosand advised that staff had met with the Veterinarian, and found the facility to be well-run and the doctor to be receptive to meeting the needs of the Roseville community.  Lt. Rosand apologized on behalf of the doctor who was unable to attend tonight's meeting due to a schedule conflict.  However, Lt. Rosand referenced a letter from the Veterinarian addressing concerns related to euthanizing pets and other concerns brought forward tonight, and offered to read it at the direction of Mayor Roe.

 

Mayor Roe questioned the contract language related to pets becoming the property of the clinic.

 

Chief Mathwig clarified that this language had existed for almost thirty years and had been included in the previous Brighton Veterinary Clinic contract; and advised that this proposed contract was similar to language of previous contracts.

 

Councilmember McGehee responded that it didn't matter, as she had been unaware of that language.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe as to past experience on the number of animals this five-day redemption period affected on an annual basis, Chief Mathwig advised that the personnel keeping that information at Brighton Veterinary Clinic wasn't in today to provide that information when requested by the Police Department.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the need for a contract in place by January 1, 2016, and suggested delaying action for a week to allow staff to gather information as requested; and to discuss possible alternatives with the clinic beyond selling or euthanizing animals, such as turning them over to an animal shelter.

 

Lt. Rosand noted that the veterinarian at Hillcrest also addressed that in her letter; with Mayor Roe directing staff to read it into the record.

 

Lt. Rosand read the letter from Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet at Hillcrest, advising that animals were only euthanized if severely injured, sick, feral, or aggressive; and noted that the rate of euthanasia was including those was less than 10% and qualified Hillcrest as a "no kill" shelter.  However, Dr. Bothelett advised that the made a conscious decision not to advertise their clinic under those terms, as it indicated no killing, and they chose not to give that impression; but clarified that she didn't become a veterinarian to kill animals, and provided two websites to advertise available animals to get them into proper homes.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she understood their policy and recognized they couldn't house animals indefinitely, but reiterated her objection to having contract language stating the clinic could sell an animal unless they could put them into foster care or in another home, and suggested contract language that animals should be given to the humane society or another shelter if they've exhausted their own facilities.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed his curiosity in contacting Brighton Veterinary Clinic to determine their history of animals not being picked up and whether it had proven problematic, since he anticipated most pet owners would be making calls looking for their pets.  If not, Councilmember Etten opined it wasn't something to worry about other than the clinic itself, especially since the available clinics willing to provide this service was limited; it behooved the city to provide some give and take in contract language.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, TABLING consideration of approval of the 2016 Hillcrest Animal Control Service Agreement (Attachment A) to the next meeting subsequent to receipt of additional information in response to the questions raised during tonight's discussion.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

10.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Request by City of Roseville for Approval of Certain Minor, Clarifying Text Amendments to Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of City Code

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request for addressing minor errors, omissions, or vague passages in current text based on practical usage, as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned RCA Exhibit A (page 2) related to existing design standards for exterior storage buildings, questioning the need to revise that language as she found it a nice addition to city code.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that the city had supported sheds in the past similar in appearance to those sold by Lowe's or Menard's, with the city preferring only larger accessory structures to be similar in exterior materials to that of the home or principal structure versus pre-fabricated or something put over a weekend without prior knowledge of the city.  Mr. Paschke advised that this prompted reverting to previous code language and interpretation.

 

Specific to private swimming pools (page 2), Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale in 6' versus 5' separation of pools from the principal structure and whether such a minimal difference created an issue.

 

Mayor Roe suggested the rationale may be to make that separation between accessory and principal structures at 5' was for consistency purposes with setback references.

 

Mr. Paschke concurred with Mayor Roe's statement.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1487 (RCA Exhibit B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Certain Text of Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of Roseville City Code."

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1487S (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Certain Text of Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of Roseville City Code."

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Consider Approval of Proposed Text Amendments of Roseville City Code, Chapter 901 Building Code: including Sections 901.01 (Adoption of Building Code), 901.06 (Permits), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)\

Permit Coordinator Don Munson briefly summarized the requested text amendments to city code as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.  Mr. Munson noted most of these were basically housekeeping items to bring city code into compliance with Minnesota State Statutes as updated, and eliminate duplications; but represented no changes in fees collected for types of permits.

 

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1488 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Sections 901.01 (Adoption of Building Code), 901.06 (Permits, Inspections and Fees), 901.08 (State Surcharge), and 901.11 (Construction Deposits)."

                                   

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No.1488S (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Sections 901.01 (Adoption of Building Code), 901.06 (Permits, Inspections and Fees), 901.08 (State Surcharge), and 901.11 (Construction Deposits)."

                        Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Consider Approval of Proposed Text Amendments of Roseville City Code, Chapter 905 (Swimming Pools), including Section s905.01 (Permit Required), 905.03 (Conditions), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)

Permit Coordinator Don Munson briefly summarized the requested text amendments to city code as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.  Mr. Munson again noted, as with the previous item, most of these were basically housekeeping items to eliminate duplicate and/or contradictory language but represented no changes in fees collected for permits.  Mr. Munson referenced the zoning ordinance section related to private swimming pools, and other areas addressed in zoning code versus this particular chapter.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Munson addressed rationale in changing fence height requirement around pools, as part of zoning ordinance changes in 2010 adopting national standards, including fence height from old city code again in line with national standards.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson clarified when pool filters/equipment is located inside a home it wasn't subject to the 50' property line as the concern was with noise of that equipment located outside.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted the need for additional education for residents in appropriate emptying of private pools (Section 905.03.H, page 2) with Mr. Munson advising he would discuss additional information and communication efforts with the City's Communication Department.

 

Mayor Roe referenced stormwater codes within the parameters of the Public Works Department, and sought clarification from Mr. Munson on the distance of 50' for multi-family pools versus 30' for single-family pools for location of the pump from the nearest property line.

 

Mr. Munson advised that new standards had been included in the zoning ordinance section for private pools at single-family homes; but clarified that there were no changes at this time for multi-family pools, with the same standards still applicable and no indication any updates are needed at this time.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus related to removing the restriction for private pools on single-family properties, Mr. Munson advised that while the section was removed from this text, it was now addressed in the zoning ordinance, and stated accessory mechanicals for private pools needed to be at least 30' from the residential structure and adjacent lots.

 

Going forward, Councilmember Willmus suggested staff look at that language about location of pool mechanicals, noting that as with new technologies for central air conditioner compressors, this equipment for private pools was also now operating much quieter than past equipment.

 

Mayor Roe noted this may make existing mechanicals legal, non-conforming.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned the fence height from 4' to 5', and stated that whether it was a national standard or not, she preferred a higher height based on safety concerns for neighborhood children near private pools.

 

Mr. Munson responded that this height, proposed at 4' as the national standard, was now addressed in Section 1011.12.D of City Zoning Code, and conflicting language proposed for removal from this section of code.

 

If the City Council wanted to look at that further, Mayor Roe suggested having that portion return to the City Council at a later date.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked if that height was tied to building code standards and whether the city would be superseding state building code.

 

Mr. Munson responded that the state regulates fence height, currently at 5', for  private pools.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte on fence height, preferring 5' around a public pool.

 

Mayor Roe suggested considering this proposed ordinance as presented; and if further changes are preferred, to provide direction to staff as a separate motion.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1489 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Swimming Pools: Sections 905.01 (Permit Required), 905.03 (Conditions), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)."

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1489S (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Swimming Pools: Sections 905.01 (Permit Required), 905.03 (Conditions), and 905.05 (Regulated Pools)."

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, directing staff to revisit the height of pool fencing in zoning code language.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, amending the original (Laliberte) motion to further direct staff to seek an amendment for mechanical equipment to equal that of setbacks for non-multi-family pools.

 

Without objection, makers of the original motion were amenable to this amendment and the motion was revised accordingly to incorporate both staff directives.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Munson advised that the 4' height was put into the city zoning code in 2010; and stated he would need to research the number of pools built since that time, but noted staff typically only received 1 to 2 pool permits annually.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

11.         Presentations

 

12.         Public Hearings

 

a.            Public Hearing to Consider Pawn America License Renewal

City Planner Paschke briefly summarized this requested license renewal for the currency exchange license for Pawn America for calendar year 2016; and as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:02 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on considering Pawn America's renewal of their license to operate currency exchange businesses in Roseville for the 2016 calendar year, with no one appearing for or against.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the requests by Pawn America Minnesota LLC, 1715 N Rice Street, Roseville, MN to renew their license to operate currency exchange businesses in Roseville for the 2016 calendar year.

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Public Hearing to Consider Easement Vacation for Farrington Estates

City Engineer Jesse Freihammer briefly summarized this request vacating an easement at 311 County Road B, as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.

 

As noted in the report, Mayor Roe noted subsequent action for platting of the Final Plat would come before the City Council at which time the new easement  would be dedicated including Outlot A, clarifying that Outlot A is not part of tonight's action.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Freihammer clarified that the current easement was a ditch, and the plan was for Outlot A  to be graded to create a basin. Councilmember McGehee noted this was a heavily-treed lot, and staff needed to take that into consideration in working with the property owner that Outlot A should not be clear-cut when digging for this basin.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:07 p.m. with no one appearing for or against.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11275 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Vacation of an Easement located on Lot Seven (7), Michael's Rearrangement of Lots 9 to 16 Inclusive of Mackubin & Inglehart Addition of Outlots to St. Paul, except the East 240 Feet of the South 200 Feet and Subject State Highway 36;" vacating a sewer easement running west to east on the parcel at 311 County Road B; vacation subject to City Council approval of the final plat.

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Resolution Creating the Economic Development Authority (EDA), and Approval of Transfer of Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Powers to the EDA

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta briefly reviewed the process undertaken by the City Council to create an EDA and absorb much of the HRA functions, assets and obligations as legally permissible, including holding a public hearing in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 429.093.  Mr. Bilotta noted these details were laid out in the RCA dated November 30, 2015, and addressed in the draft enabling resolution creating the EDA (Attachment A).

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the standard provisions and basic text for the resolution and as laid out in State Statute.

 

While not having drafted the proposed resolution, City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mr. Bilotta that the language was typical boiler plate in accordance with State Statute and he didn't see any problems in adopting it as proposed.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced areas of concern for her or areas she was seeking safeguards with draft resolution language related to issuance of bonds (Section 4.03), expenditure of public funds in wooing developers (Section 4.06), and noted that language should be revised from "Mayor" and "City Administrator" to "City Manager" and "City Council" (Section 6.02).

 

Mayor Roe clarified that Section 6.02 applied to city officials as appropriate and only related to them executing documents, not taking action on behalf of the EDA.

 

Regarding the remainder of the proposed text in the draft resolution, Mayor Roe stated he found its terminology to run parallel with State Statute; with City Attorney Gaughan concurring.  Therefore, Mayor Roe questioned the necessity of memorializing things in the resolution that were already clearly covered in detail in State Statute.  Mayor Roe noted that once the EDA is adopted, the City Council has EDA authority, and advised he had not come prepared to parse all those individual items in tonight's discussion.  Mayor Roe suggested caution in going forward in
changing language that may prove contradictory to State Statute.

 

Mayor Roe called to order the public hearing at approximately 7:13 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the City's creation of an EDA.

 

Public Comment

Written comment was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, via email dated November 2, 2015 from Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue, generally in opposition to creation of an EDA.

 

Lisa McCormick, 2850 Wheeler Street

Ms. McCormick expressed her appreciation for the seriousness the City Council was taking with this and decisions made by elected officials.  Ms. McCormick stated she hadn't realized the actual EDA creation would also be done at this meeting, and therefore apologized for being unprepared beyond several procedural questions as she had personally compared the draft resolution so State Statute.

 

While the resolution appeared to be mostly boiler plate and involved setting up the structure of the EDA, Ms. McCormick sought reassurance that all meetings of the EDA would be public and recorded and public comment heard, as that was not specifically stated in the draft language.

 

Ms. McCormick also expressed concern because the EDA would be comprised of City Councilmembers, there may be a potential conflict set up under removals; but considering the language was boiler plate, she wasn't sure much could be done.  Ms. McCormick referenced Section 1.3 of the draft resolution stating vacancies; and suggested discussion or consideration if that could be dealt with in EDA by-laws for citizen members to be added to the EDA Board.

 

In Section 1.05, Ms. McCormick expressed curiosity as to salaries for the EDA since statutorily commissioners and the City Manager serving as Executive Director of the EDA would receive pay, and wondered if similar remuneration as that given the HRA's Executive Director would apply to the City Manager as well.  While assuming that was not the case, Ms. McCormick noted it was included in draft resolution language; and if intended, questioned if the usual conflict of interest disclosures would be filed.

 

In Section 5 (Limitations of Power), Ms. McCormick noted that, while this language is taken from State Statute, the first two provisions of Statute were not included specifically in the resolution language  but questioned why those two were omitted, opining she would feel better if included in resolution enabling resolution language.

 

John Easterling, 1850 County Road C-2 W

In his reading of the announcement about creation of an EDA in the Roseville Review, Mr. Easterling expressed concern with combining powers of the City Council and EDA that it served to create a very powerful Roseville City Council.  Mr. Easterling stated that he preferred and supported having qualified commissioners filling that role through an application, interview and appointment process, and then working with the City Council, and hopefully allowing for representation from all different parts of Roseville.  Mr. Easterling opined that granting this much power to the City Council would not prove for the betterment of the community, questioning if it was a wise decision to do so at this time, when this would allow the City Council greater authority for land acquisition and property clean-up, and in turn potentially increase taxes to accomplish those efforts.

 

Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:20 p.m. with no one else appearing for or against.

 

In response to questioned raised during public comment, Mayor Roe addressed them, with assistance from City Attorney Gaughan.

 

Regarding the meetings being open to the public, Mayor Roe advised that as the EDA is a public body, it would be subject to all Open Meeting Laws similar to that of the City Council and its advisory commissions, even though not explicitly stated in the resolution, it would be subject to those statutory requirements.

 

Similarly, regarding conflict of interest laws, Mayor Roe clarified that they related to all public officials, including EDA members, and the same application would apply whether or not included in resolution language.

 

Specific to citizen members serving on the EDA, Mayor Roe deferred to the full Council to address that language following his comments.

 

Regarding removal of an EDA Commissioner addressed in Sections 1.04, Mayor Roe stated he had a question about the proposed resolution language and whether it contradicted itself in addressing service as an elected councilmember and service as an EDA Commissioner, suggesting additional discussion on that by the full body as well.

 

Specific to salaries for EDA Commissioners, Mayor Roe stated his expectation would be that there would be no salary beyond that currently received by serving as a Councilmember, and if the Council considered that needed to be enshrined in the resolution, language could be amended accordingly.

 

Regarding concern expressed that the first two statutory provisions had been deleted from draft resolution language, Mayor Roe deferred to City Attorney Gaughan for comment.

 

City Attorney Gaughan stated that those two provisions specifically referenced City Council approval, and since the drafter of resolution language knew the EDA would be comprised solely of City Council members, may have found it duplicative and inefficient, and thereby omitting those duplicative references.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned, if the EDA was changed in the future to consist of or include citizen members, would it be better to have that language included.

 

City Attorney Gaughan noted this was not a legal question for him to address; but advised if the City Council amended that membership at a future date, presumably they would amend that language and other applicable content of this enabling resolution at that time as well.

 

Referencing Sections 4.03 and 4.05 of the draft resolution, Councilmember Etten noted the issuance of bonds and development strategies or other specific actions of the EDA would be approved or authorized by the City Council in accordance with State Statute.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that, with the discussion occurring over the weekend on NextDoor.com, it was important to note that there was a misconception that this proposed body was all-encompassing.  Councilmember Willmus noted that with the structure and make-up of the HRA, while they came to the City Council for approval of their annual levy, elected officials had no role in setting up the HRA budget.  According to their HRA by-laws and State Statute, Councilmember Willmus advised that, if the HRA had decided to pursue a bond issue, they could have done so.  Under that guise, Councilmember Willmus asked if the public wanted to have a group of mayor-appointed officials vested with that level of authority or power.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference and opined it was more appropriate for elected officials, elected by the general populace, to have that power, and ability for voters to change the make-up of that body every two years.  Councilmember Willmus stated, as a Roseville resident, he found that more attractive by rolling those HRA powers into an EDA and comprised of elected versus appointed officials, giving the power back to voters of Roseville where it should be.  Councilmember Willmus stated that had prompted his initial effort to pursue an EDA versus an HRA.  Councilmember Willmus apologized for any misperceptions or misinformation, or perception of intent that may be out there, but wanted to clarify the process for the public record.

 

Councilmember McGehee further addressed some of the issues raised tonight.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council has always had the power to bond, and creation of an EDA had nothing to do in attempting to create more power. Councilmember McGehee noted that one of the current powers of the City Council was their Port Authority powers that could be used for bonding without any recourse by Roseville residents, a technique that the City Council majority had already chosen to use.  Councilmember McGehee stated that both an EDA and HRA provide much more citizen input and referendum approval for bonding; and agreed with Councilmember Willmus in having this power vested in an elected versus appointed body provided citizens with more opportunity to provide input rather than not allowing them to do so.  Councilmember McGehee noted that when the HRA levied monies, they could spend it any way they chose to do so without oversight by the City Council (e.g. acquisition of buildings and/or property), even though they had done an excellent job in her opinion.

 

Specific to whether or not the City Manager, serving as the EDA's Executive Director, would receive monetary compensation to do so, City Manager Trudgeon stated the answer was "no," and clarified that was not the intent of this action in any way.

 

Mayor Roe suggested, for assurances and clarity, if the City Council chose to do so, language clearly stating "no compensation" could be added to the draft resolution text.

 

Councilmember Laliberte, with consensus of her colleagues, spoke in support of memorializing that intent in the resolution for members of the City Council as well as for the Executive Director.

 

Discussion ensued, along with consultation by City Attorney Gaughan, in text changes to the draft resolution and in which specific sections additional or clarifying text should occur.  That discussion addressed limitations of power and compensation clarified; consistency in signing off documents by the Mayor and City Manager, and how that would occur under the EDA role; Open Meeting Law stipulations in accordance with current City Council Rules of Procedure for broadcast and recording of meetings; correcting "City Administrator" to "City Manager;" City
Council and Campaign Finance reporting requirements and Conflict of Interest provisions; and EDA Act language for potential removal of an EDA Board member and how that related to City Council election.

 

City Attorney Gaughan advised that this discussion had occurred with staff during amendment of the HRA by-laws, and remained applicable if not for this body for a different body in the future, to memorialize State EDA Act, even though it may appear nonsensical to include it since the EDA and City Council would be one in the same.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding parallel status of Rules of Order to define a quorum and simple majority rule; processes in place to address certain misconduct issues for Councilmembers and/or EDA Commissioners; whether or not the City could require more stringent requirements than State Statute indicated; references to and contained within the City's Uniform Commission Code as applicable; and subsequent establishment of Rules of Procedure for the EDA to follow as a body and to address specifics, but if the EDA intended to subsequently adopt by-laws, that would be the appropriate place to address that provision.

 

City Attorney Gaughan suggested inserting (Section 2. Officers and Meetings) a reference to the EDA Board adopting Rosenberg's Rules of Order, as included in the Uniform Commission Code as adopted.

 

Mr. Bilotta advised that staff intended to bring draft by-laws to the body in January of 2016.

 

At the request of Mr. Bilotta, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that "compensation" didn't infer "expense reimbursement," nor was reimbursement synonymous with compensation.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11276 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Enabling the Creation of an Economic Development Authority in the City of Roseville, MN;" amended as follows:

·         Section 1.02 (lines 11-13)

Add language to state: "EDA Board Members shall not receive compensation in addition to any approved City Council or Mayoral Salary and shall comply with all reporting requirements under the City's Ethics Code."

·         ADD New Section 2.05

"All meetings of the EDA shall comply with State Open Meeting Laws and requirements for broadcast and recording as contained in the City Council's Rules of Procedure."

·         Section 3.01(lines 16-17)

Revise to read: "The City Manager shall be designated as Executive Director of the EDA, and shall not receive any compensation for such."

·         Section 6.02 (Line 40)

Correct to read: "City Manager" rather than "City Administrator"

 

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

With this action, Mr. Bilotta noted that the EDA would have the full powers of the HRA as the primary body, and under the three-step process outlined in the RCA.

 

As part of that follow-up of programs put in place by the HRA, Councilmember Laliberte asked when that information would come forward for decisions on which programs to continue, eliminate or revise, since there was no City Council Work Session scheduled until March of 2016.

 

Mr. Bilotta advised that the actual movement of those programs would occur in bulk from the HRA to the EDA, partly having occurred with the previous action, and part occurring at an organizational meeting of the City Council and EDA in January of 2016.  Mr. Bilotta advised that the first quarter review would be part of the City Council's Policy Priority Planning (PPP) process and how the new EDA would look.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11277 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Relating to the Roseville Economic Development Authority; Transferring Certain Projects and Programs to that Authority; and Approving Certain Organizational Matters."

                                                                       

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

13.         Budget Items

 

a.            Public Hearing to Solicit Comment on the 2016 Budget and Tax Levy

Mayor Roe reviewed the 2016 budget and levy process to-date, as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015; and invited Finance Director Chris Miller to present that information was provided with the RCA and entitled, "Proposed 2016 Budget, Tax Levy & Utility Rates"

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:20 p.m. with no one appearing for or against.

 

Mayor Roe announced action adopting the final 2016 budget and levy was anticipated to occur at the next City Council meeting, December 7, 2015.

 

b.            Public Hearing to Consider Adopting the 2016 Utility Rates

Having briefly addressed proposed 2016 utility rates during his previous presentation, Finance Director Miller highlighted each utility as detailed in the RCA dated November 30, 2015, and provided a history of aggregate usage, apparent consumer behavior, and data gleaned from the Finance Accounting System (beginning on page 6 of the RCA).  Should the City Council choose to do so, Mr. Miller noted that a draft resolution adopting proposed utility rates was included in tonight's meeting materials, Attachment A to the RCA.

 

Following Finance Director Miller's presentation, Mayor Roe apologized for inadvertently omitting an opportunity for councilmember feedback about the previous presentation, and advised comment would be received on both these items now, including any councilmember feedback to staff on remaining questions or additional information they needed for next week's discussion, specific to each item.

 

Utility Rates

Referencing the presentation, Councilmember McGehee noted the base fees, that she considered a tax, when taken in their aggregate came to approximately $100/quarter or $400 annually; with the remaining rate structure representing purchase of a product.  Under that scenario, Councilmember McGehee questioned if other communities called these base fees a tax, including them in the tax portion of their levy and recorded consumption separately.  Councilmember McGehee opined she found this a cleaner concept without worrying about the consumption of the average homeowner if there was such a person, but with that consumption under control of the consumer, while the base fee or hook-up fee is not under their control.  By definition, Councilmember McGehee suggested that moving that $400 would allow residents to deduct a significant amount of their utility fee as a tax and make more sense in what residents were actually purchasing, especially since capacity and infrastructure costs had gone up considerably.

 

Finance Director Miller stated he didn't know too much about the specifics whether other cities took what was traditionally funded as water/sewer fees and billed them to property taxes.  However, Mr. Miller opined he felt the reverse had been true due to levy limits imposed on cities by the State and how they could manage to continue funding on the tax levy side versus funding out of non-levy dollars.  Mr. Miller noted this was a policy discussion for the City Council at their discretion, with previous discussion having occurred to some extent in previous years.  Mr. Miller cautioned there would be other consequences in taking such an action; and noted this rate structure had been adopted and in place since 2009.

 

Budget Hearing

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification on the tax levy comparison slide in Finance Director Miller's presentation as it related to the city-specific portion of the tax rate applied to a property tax bill.  Councilmember McGehee questioned why on slide 4, comparisons were made to peer cities with a population greater than 10,000 and in subsequent comparisons that changed to peer cities with populations greater than 50,000, opining that seemed to be a better comparison from her perspective.

 

Finance Director Miller offered to chart similar comparisons for that same peer group, but advised it wouldn't look much different than that displayed now.  However, Mr. Miller advised that the disparity may prove larger for first-ring suburbs that didn't have a similar tax base to that of Roseville.

 

General Discussion and Additional Information Requests/Questions Needed from Staff for the Next Meeting

Councilmember Laliberte reiterated past comments she had provided to staff:

1)    What ramifications it would have on the 2016 budget if the Reception Desk position went from paid staff to a volunteer, reallocating that employee to different tasks in the Administration/Finance Department.

2)    Whether any changes would occur in the proposed Forester position through use of an outside consultant to develop products for the City.

3)    With cost of living adjustment (COLA) projections, assurance that the formula set up last year remained in-tact and not changed just one year later; and whether or not that formula remained true-to-form.

 

Specific to the Forester position, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the position would remain status quo, with the half-time position funded by the Parks & Recreation Fund.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Community Development Department would utilize the outside consultant for tree preservation and development projects on an as-needed basis, but otherwise there would be no changes moving forward into 2016.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted that last year the intent was to add a Forester position full-time to get away from the three different silo separations for tree services.

 

City Manager Trudgeon responded that there were distinct duties in each of the three areas going beyond simply answering resident questions on tree issues in their private yards and/or rights-of-way, and oversight of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) issue.  Mr. Trudgeon sought clarification if Councilmember Laliberte was suggesting the city go to all contracting for these services.

 

Councilmember Laliberte responded that she was suggesting consideration of that as an option.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that, with the current outside contract service in place, they could also supervise the EAB program; with many other opportunities available for residents to learn about trees on their private property, such as those provided by the extension service.

 

With the proposed scenario for the Community Development Department using an outside consultant and the part-time Forester funded through Parks & Recreation, Councilmember Laliberte asked what happened if and when the Public Works Department needed those services.

 

City Manager Trudgeon responded that the Public Works Department would continue to work with the City's part-time Forester as they had historically done to-date.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted that the original intent, from her recollection, was that having one in-house Forester, everyone would be on the same page rather than what is apparently being proposed now, questioning when the City Council had approved that shift.

 

City Manager Trudgeon reiterated that only the Community Development Department would be using the outside consultant services, and had been provided in the 2016 budget.

 

If that was the case, Councilmember Etten questioned what value the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments were getting from that arrangement.  If services were all provided by contract, Councilmember Etten opined that would not serve to make things more unified, suggesting that the outside consultant could use everyone or anyone on their staff, providing an even less unified effort.  Councilmember Etten further opined that the work completed for a new tree preservation, removal and restoration ordinance should serve to unify those efforts with unified definitions available among departments.

 

Specific to contract negotiations with various union groups, Councilmember Etten asked staff to provide updated information as much as legally possible and how that affected 2016 budget items.

 

Specific to the recycling utility, Councilmember Willmus asked staff when the contract came up for renewal.

 

Public Works Director Marc Culver advised that the current contract with Eureka Recycling expired at the end of 2016; and staff planned to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) in early- to mid-2016.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned the status of organics being mandated by Ramsey County in 2016, yet with nothing heard to-date as to what that meant; and questioned if the City of Roseville would be held to something in 2016 that wasn't in its current contract, or if it would be part of what was included in the new RFP.

 

Mr. Culver clarified that was a mandate Ramsey County was holding itself to, establishing organic recycling through their own sites and attempting to expand those efforts.  Mr. Culver advised that there was nothing which the City of Roseville would be responsible for in 2016; but noted organic collection would be included as an option for the contract starting in 2017.  Mr. Culver noted that this would be reliant in part on what the City of St. Paul did with organics.

 

Specific to the new Volunteer Coordinator established last year, Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to provide a one-year check-in and include any new volunteer opportunities beyond those in Parks & Recreation addressing the overall organization.

 

With Mayor Roe seeking to clarify if Councilmember Laliberte wanted that information as part of the budget discussion for next week or at a later date, Councilmember Laliberte stated she preferred it not so much later that it didn't happen.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if she foresaw budget impacts with the position; with Councilmember Laliberte responding that was part of her questioning on ramifications with the Receptionist position being a volunteer versus a paid employee.

 

Mayor Roe expressed concern in expectations for deliverables from staff with only 2-3 days to create an agenda packet for the December 7, 2015 meeting; and whether that allowed sufficient time to fairly evaluate the Volunteer Coordinator position and impacts for the organization and broader community.

 

Finance Director Miller sought clarification from Councilmember Laliberte as to whether her intent in reallocating the Receptionist position to a volunteer position was related to the Intern position context and moving that Receptionist back to Administration Department functions.  Mr. Miller sought further clarification as to whether Councilmember Laliberte was seeking a report as to why that may or may not work or what was envisioned for that position.

 

Councilmember Laliberte responded affirmatively, noting her intent to provide another person in their department performing that work; and the budget impact if more volunteers were put in some of those positions, as one suggestion.

 

City Manager Trudgeon stated that, if that position was retained and moved back to the Finance Department, there would be no dollar impact, but there may be some reduction in the budget if the Intern position is not approved.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a potential time-spent analysis intended for an Intern position.

 

Finance Director Miller noted that could be considered, or a hybrid of the two addressing an operational need for 20 hours per week; and advised that information could be provided for the City Council by next week.  Mr. Miller stated that, the short answer was that staff had explored several options, but one challenge was getting consistent volunteers committed to a schedule while providing them with something meaningful to do (e.g. project-oriented versus day-to-day volunteer positions).  Mr. Miller advised that Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien was struggling to
fit that niche.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked staff to provide something about proposed compensation for a paid Intern position.

 

Councilmember McGehee cautioned that the Reception Desk served as the face of the City of Roseville; and didn't think it should be provided by an Intern or volunteer
position.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:53 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 9:00 p.m.

 

14.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Approve/Deny Pawn America License Renewal

 

b.            Approve/Deny Farrington Estates Easement Vacation

 

c.            Approve/Deny Creation of Economic Development Authority (EDA)

 

d.            Advisory Commission Review for 2016

Mayor Roe introduced this discussion subsequent to the City Council's joint meeting in October with its advisory Human Rights Commission (HRC) directing staff to schedule a more comprehensive review of all advisory commissions, currently before the City Council, and as a result of the Uniform Commission Code adopted earlier this year.  While initially scheduled to address the three vacancies on the HRC not yet filled, Mayor Roe noted that this discussion could include roles and responsibilities of each standing council advisory commission and potential shifts.  Mayor Roe noted this discussion was also in conjunction with the related topic of the newly-created advisory Community Engagement Commission (CEC) and broader commission discussions and thoughts.

 

HRC

Specific to the HRC, Councilmember Etten expressed his personal interest in returning that advisory commission to its full force.  Councilmember Etten recognized the positive activities and robust work currently being undertaken by the HRC even with their limited membership available, and their return to a strong regular versus sporadic meeting schedule.  Councilmember Etten stated he thought the HRC should return to full strength to allow them to operate more effectively.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten, opining she was impressed with their presentations and their well-attended and well-led efforts when appearing before the City Council at those joint meetings.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that this was proving to be a successful advisory commission and a good addition to Roseville, and a necessity for the community the size of Roseville.

Councilmember Willmus noted one thing touched upon during previous discussion was the charge within the function and duties of the HRC, including their programming aspect.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he had spoken with the current Chair of the HRC, noting their real focus over the last few years had become presentations or gatherings versus the programming and advisory role, which is currently the role the HRC is charged with by the City Council.  Councilmember Willmus questioned if the same understanding was in place with what is actually occurring and what was actually on the ledger; seeking to call attention to that disconnect in their charge and expectations of the City Council on their advisory role.

 

From a broader perspective, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in looking at all advisory commissions and staffing those commissions including questions such as:  Do we have too many? Are existing commissions being properly utilized?; Are tweaks needed to improve efficiencies of existing commissions?; Is it necessary for all commissions to meet monthly or would the city be better served by a quarterly or semi-annual meeting schedule for some commissions (e.g. Ethics and HRC)?.

 

Specific to the HRC, Mayor Roe opined they had a distinct role, and suggested perhaps the City Council needed to do more to clarify that distinction and define the focus of the HRC and CEC in their respective roles.   Mayor Roe stated he continued to support the City Council's expectations as outlined in the CEC's enabling ordinance.  Regarding the HRC enabling ordinance, Mayor Roe suggested an immediate review before the next round of appointments, to reconsider its scope, duties and functions.  Mayor Roe opined that he found some listed in the ordinance to be unclear or some overlapping with those of the CEC (e.g. assisting the State Human Rights Commission in implementing the Human Rights Act) questioning whether that was even a viable expectation of the City Council.  As an initial starting point, Mayor Roe suggested charging the HRC to provide feedback to the City Council on their suggestions to improve language of that ordinance when they return to full membership.  As part of that, Mayor Roe stated he would be open to considering meeting frequency or simply establishing a base minimum number of meetings through ordinance language or other City Council action. Mayor Roe stated that he was more concerned in dictating a specific number of meetings as a City Council, especially in defining roles and responsibilities; and suggested that language may be added to other advisory commissions as well related to a minimum standard number of meetings, allowing them to meet more as they felt appropriate.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated she liked the idea of minimum meetings and specific policies to determine that frequency.  Councilmember McGehee used the Police Civil Service and Ethics Commissions as examples.  Councilmember McGehee agreed with seeking input from the HRC.  In terms of advisory versus performance, Councilmember McGehee noted there were differences depending on their general function in the community and whether or not it was applicable for them to advise the City Council or perform certain duties or functions as appropriate.  Councilmember McGehee opined that some of that failure to clarify that was a failing on the part of the City Council in being more specific.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed with the comments of Councilmember McGehee.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her concern in setting a minimum versus monthly or quarterly meeting schedule was in a lack of consistency for the benefit of the public on specific areas of importance or interest to them.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned how the community could be expected to engage with advisory commissions if they were meeting randomly, and suggested some base or consistent time requirement.

 

Mayor Roe noted that another piece of the discussion was the Uniform Commission Code and requirements included requiring commissions to establish a meeting schedule for each year.  Mayor Roe opined that this put some onus on those commissions to provide that consistent public information.

 

Mayor Roe suggested consideration by the City Council as to whether or not to fill the HRC vacancies as part of the January 2016 application process.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, filling the three vacancies to the HRC.

 

City Manager Trudgeon clarified the motion, whether to fill those three vacancies now or in April 2016 with the next round of appointments.

 

By consensus, the City Council confirmed that the intent was to fill the positions on the HRC for appointment in April of 2016.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to charge the HRC to begin a review of their current ordinance and role, and provide a recommendation to the City Council at their earliest convenience.

 

Broader Discussion

Councilmember Laliberte sought information on how many advisory commissions staff could sufficiently or realistically support.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested starting with defining the charge and scope for the HRC and CEC and how to clarify their specific roles, as well as how they functioned related to a meeting schedule.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff could better help advisory commissions if not meeting monthly.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked staff to provide their recommendation, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, for meeting frequency of various  commissions, and any other ideas or desires they wished to share with the City Council at this time.

 

Ethics Commission

Mayor Roe advised that since he'd been serving on the City Council in 2007, only one ethics complaint had been received and subsequently withdrawn, or at least with no formal action being taken.  Therefore, Mayor Roe stated he had mixed emotions in appointing citizens to serve when not receiving complaints or no changes are indicated to the Ethics Code.  Mayor Roe opined that staff could perform the training without a commission, but noted the process was in place in code that the Ethics Commission review complaints as they were received and help consider those complaints and their resolution.  Mayor Roe stated he had given consideration to recommending demoting the Ethics Commission from a standing committee to an ad hoc committee, staffed by one member from each commission if and when a complaint or issue needed addressing based on the Ethics Code. Mayor Roe noted that direction could be provided to them at that time to seek their input and would serve as the reality of how the Ethics Commission could function and what serving residents actually received from their service on that Commission.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that her observations from the last two joint meetings with the Ethics Commission was a sense of frustration from them; and no charge to do anything other than enact monthly ethics tips and annual training put on by staff and the City Attorney.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she shared Mayor Roe's concern in appointing people who in turn become disappointed or frustrated by a lack of meaningful work.

 

For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe clarified that his comments in no way intended to suggest he was advocating getting rid of the Ethics Commission or not have a complaint process in place, but simply rethinking how it operated.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that, using Mayor Roe's idea for members serving from standing  commissions, they would still review complaints as currently done by the standing Ethics Commission.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, noting complaints would be received from the City Manager or City Attorney as applicable to pass on to the ultimate decision-maker, still the City Council.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if Mayor Roe still envisioned the Ethics Commission meeting annually to discuss their responsibilities as an educational piece as they understand their role in this situation or how they still functioned within the city.

 

Mayor Roe stated that wasn't a bad idea; and that would provide some orientation, unless that information was provided to commissions ahead of time to determine commissioner interest in volunteering for that role.  Mayor Roe stated it would need defining what that role was if such a process was undertaken, such as a one-time meeting to get to the basics or mechanics of that role.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated she envisioned it as something added to the Uniform Commission Code for annual appointment by each commission to appoint one person to serve in that capacity.

 

Mayor Roe suggested amending the Ethics Commission Code language to address establishment and membership and potential term, but deferred comment on that to staff or the City Attorney as to whether or not the Uniform Commission Code was the appropriate place.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her agreement with the orientation idea and Councilmember Laliberte's idea whereby each commission packet would define a process with members coming from those various commissions to provide that function, along with a straightforward statement of how the City handled ethics complaints and the process for doing so.  Councilmember McGehee opined that an additional benefit would be familiarizing one additional person on each  commission with ethics issues and the process involved.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that was a good point.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he was intrigued by the idea and could find no reservations at this time.

 

Mayor Roe suggested the next step would be to direct staff to return with proposed code language.

 

City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that directive, requesting additional thought on staff's part in how to translate that intent to code.

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to review code language and recommend a process related to the concept of a standing Ethics Committee as outlined.

 

Public Safety Commission

Mayor Roe noted his long-time goal of getting more residents involved in public safety policy, which served as the biggest part of the City's public face and staffing. Mayor Roe noted previous discussions related to establishment of a Public Safety Commission, for which he remained an advocate, but without coming to fruition. 

 

From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe suggested a good way for that to evolve would be from the existing Police Civil Service Commission and continuing their role with the Police Department staffing as a subcommittee.  Mayor Roe clearly advised that he was in no way speaking to any role for them in public review of police officer complaints.  In conjunction with the Fire Department's conversion from its current structure to paid on-call structure, Mayor Roe opined that having a public safety commission role may have proven helpful during that process, as well as in considering staffing levels of the Police Department and recent discussion for community service officers, and even back as far as the fire station study and other issues involving public safety.  Mayor Roe stated that he continued to view that as a missing part of the process, even in dealing with traffic safety aspects and issues with city streets such as speed concerns. 

 

Mayor Roe also suggested a role in the Public Works function and other departments, including nuisance code (junk and debris in yards) and general public safety and welfare issues for residents of and visitors to Roseville.

 

In light of that, Mayor Roe distributed his initial concept to initiate discussion via that he had prepared and entitled, "Chapter 203 Public Safety Commission (11/15 - Roe draft) replacing existing Chapter 203 Police Civil Service Commission,

 

Based on her preliminary review, Councilmember McGehee stated she didn't agree with this serving as another Commission, since those functions listed were all task force jobs.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council had already gone overboard with commissions, and a task force could just as well advise them on traffic on residential streets, to look at full-time paid on-call firefighter staffing, or any number of things without having another standing commission.  Councilmember McGehee stated there was a segment of Roseville's population having a considerable amount of interest and skills to share related to a specific interest or expertise that would be willing to share if not required to sign-up for three years of meetings, but only for short-term task forces for project-specific issues.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his willingness to look at the possibility, stating his support would hinge on the focus of such a commission's charge, or scope of their duties.  Councilmember Willmus recognized that Mayor Roe had long had something like this in the back of his mind and frequently brought it forward for discussion.  Councilmember Willmus stated he would not say "no" at this point, and would like to further explore it and define the scope, charge and duties.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Willmus' comments, stating she was open to look at it and talk it through.  Councilmember Laliberte further stated that she liked the idea of task forces, but if ideas within the scope and duties and function of such a commission could be clearly defined, she stated her preference to appoint a commission versus constantly putting out the call for another task force. Councilmember Laliberte noted one caution, stating that she thought the Police Civil Service Commission was subject to State Statute, and sought to make sure combining it with other duties would not be a conflict.  If a commission could be structured in such a way to mandate statute and other advisory work, Councilmember Laliberte stated she would be interested in looking at it.

 

Councilmember Etten stated he was open to entertaining discussion for revising the Police Civil Service Commission, using the Variance Board to the Planning Commission as a model or example of how that might work.  Councilmember Etten opined that sometimes a task force could work, but questioned if it took so long cycle their creation that it may slow down the actual discussion needed in a timely manner.  Councilmember Etten agreed with Mayor Roe and expressed his lack of any interest in creating a civilian review board, and stated he would not consider entering that area at all, but expressed his interest in considering a standing Public Safety Commission.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested taking a broad look at staffing for such a commission and if put in place how it would change the Ethics function; and sought staff input on how that may play out and if they were supportive of the idea, with ideas for organization and other issues as part of their feedback.

 

Mayor Roe noted this touched on a minimum of two departments, and if the City Council was interested in a review, clarified that it was not his intent that it be up and running for April 1, 2016 appointments, but noted further discussion at City Council Work Sessions would be required if the City Council chose to pursue the possibility.  As staff considers his initial proposal as presented in this bench handout, Mayor Roe asked staff to also review it for further discussion and dissemination later in 2016.

 

Without objection, the preliminary document drafted by Mayor Roe was provided to staff and City Councilmembers for their comment.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the City didn't have a good track record to-date in managing its commissions already in place; and expressed concern with other areas this might stumble into, suggesting considerable caution in considering such a commission. Mayor Roe stated he was supportive about using caution, but asked for feedback from individual Councilmembers and staff for further consideration in 2016.

 

Community Engagement Commission (CEC)

Councilmember McGehee questioned if the City Council was going to look at its charge to or possibly reigning in the CEC or refocusing them more in line with what was originally intended when that charge was laid out.  Absent that review, Councilmember McGehee opined there seemed to be a problem.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked Councilmember McGehee for more specifics on the problems she perceived to have with the CEC.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the CEC problem was that many things historically done by the HRC as they finished getting their website up and running, had now spread out into other areas for the CEC beyond getting citizens involved in civic government and was engaging them in things other commissions were already doing.

 

Based on his observation of their recent meetings, Councilmember Willmus opined their focus of late was regarding neighborhood associations, and therefore, he didn't know if he could share the same concern as Councilmember McGehee that there was an issue with neighborhood associations and the HRC in that regard.

 

While that may be true, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the City Council's charge was to have the CEC aggressively form neighborhood associations.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if that was what the CEC was doing, opining that from his observation they were looking into that and crafting recommendations to bring to the City Council, as had been discussed at the last joint meeting with them.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that had been discussed the last few times the CEC had met with the City Council.  Mayor Roe opined that from his perspective he saw the challenge for the CEC was not with their scope, duties or functions or that they were wrong but there was an expectation issue.  Mayor Roe opined that the challenge appeared to be members wanting to be more involved in engaging residents versus advising the City Council on processes and policies, even though that message had been relayed repeatedly.  Mayor Roe questioned if there was more the City Council needed to do or how that directive may look.  However, Mayor Roe opined that the CEC's review of neighborhood associations was exactly what they
reported they were working on and the City Council gave them the go ahead to do so. Mayor Roe advised that he was not aware of the CEC aggressively seeking to form neighborhood associations, but stated his expectation anticipated their return to the City Council with their recommendations.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated, at this point, she thought the CEC was finding its way as a new CEC; and noted the City Council's original intent was clearly defined in the CEC's charge in their enabling ordinance.  While considering that status, Councilmember Laliberte did not that the one thing the City Council had specifically asked the CEC to work on was the comprehensive plan update process and to bring specific recommendations back for that process, a very important piece for them
to provide advice on.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was looking forward to the CEC completing some of their preliminary work and address that important issue. From her observation of the CEC meetings to-date, Councilmember Laliberte noted some conversations about planning or hosting some events to make recommendation to the City Council on how they should be done; and advised that was an area of concern that there may be some overlap occurring between the HRC and commission, with planning events or programs part of the same group or an off-shoot and not yet taking place.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the importance to check-in and make sure those efforts were not being duplicated.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that made sense.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte and specific assignments, such as the process of engagement or the comprehensive plan update process as something the City Council could use help with, noting that was a big topic coming up in the very near future, with many options of how best to do handle the process.  Councilmember McGehee stated the need to be clear that the City Council expected a periodic check-in for at least those two very specific charged when first enabling the CEC.  While agreeing with Councilmember Laliberte that the CEC is still finding its way, Councilmember McGehee stated the City Council needed to mark the pathway more clearly to facilitate their efforts.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that was well-stated by Councilmember McGehee, and noted the CEC had also been charged with observing the SE Roseville process and how to engage people in that.  Mayor Roe suggested perhaps an early 2016 joint meeting and presentation by the CEC of their respective work plan was needed to provide that check-in.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted part of the human rights is the diverse community piece, not just community engagement.

 

Mayor Roe opined that the difference was human rights not looking specifically to engage people in city activities, but viewing the broader community.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated the next step to schedule a joint meeting early in 2016.

 

Councilmember Etten suggested sitting down with the HRC and review their charge and that of the CEC as part of the anticipated recommendations from the HRC as previously noted, and before meeting with the CEC to allow the City Council to have that discussion among themselves to find clarity and ideas without crisscrossing that process and ramifications to each commission.

 

To be fair to the CEC, Mayor Roe suggested asking the CEC to also review their scope or function, as previously directed to the HRC, to allow the City Council to take that into consideration during their discussions as well.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed to have both the HRC and CEC review their respective enabling ordinances, sooner rather than later, and to plan on more frequent check-ins with the CEC rather than only once or twice annually.

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe asked staff to include the CEC along with the HRC directive in charging them to look at their scope and functions and to provide their feedback to the City Council.

 

City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that revised directive.

 

As part of this broader review, Councilmember Willmus asked that City Manager Trudgeon also consult with  commission staff liaisons as assigned and provide feedback on whether those positions were good fits, and a sense from staff on their level of commitment.  Councilmember Willmus opined that aspect could have great impact on the success of an advisory commission.

 

e.            Consider Purchase of Transit Shelters

Written comment was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, via email dated November 25, 2015 from Roger Hess, Jr., 1911 Rice Street, generally in opposition to expend taxpayer dollars of any amount over $1.00 each for purchase of the bus shelters.

 

Public Works Director Marc Culver initiated discussion of the current transit shelter franchise expiration at the end of 2015; and provided a presentation to detail those aspects, and substantially included in the RCA dated November 30, 2015.

 

As recommended by the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC), by unanimous vote at their November 24, 2015 meeting, recommended to the City Council that the City not purchase the shelters; that they authorize staff to examine the potential removal and related costs of the concrete pads at a future date; that staff be authorized to consult with the firm(s) having the bus bench franchise for their interest in movement or replacement of those benches near or on those pads; and that staff be directed to make site-specific recommendations on those sites they feel should be maintained as concrete slabs or natural restoration.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with the recommendation of the PWETC.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned if staff was aware of any advertising revenue the City had received to-date in 2015.

 

Mr. Culver advised he had no report available at this time, but projections were that those advertising revenues would only be about half of those received in 2015.

 

Mayor Roe noted that almost every shelter location with this franchisee also had a bench already located there; and questioned why the bench company would want a concrete pad located there.

 

Mr. Culver advised that, with a site-by-site review, there may be some with large pads that would provide more space.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed that the City didn't need to buy all of the shelters; but suggested considering those more heavily used based on ridership on the map provided in the meeting packet.  However, Councilmember Etten questioned the purchase price of $1,000 when the franchisee would be required to pay the full cost for their removal, suggesting they may be just as amenable to simply avoiding the removal costs. Councilmember Etten suggested retaining four existing shelters: on the west side of Roseville at County Road B-2 and Cleveland Avenue bordering I-35W, representing 20 and 19 riders respectively on the map.  Also, Councilmember Etten suggested retaining the shelter next to Har Mar Mall at County Road B, showing 76 riders; and the shelter to the east at Hamline Avenue by the Ramsey County Library.  Councilmember Etten noted they each had a fair number of riders, and since the City continued to encourage use of public transit, it would prove more pleasant and of benefit for riders during winter months.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed concern that this wasn't a function of Roseville city government and questioned how the Public Works Department would logistically manage them and the cost and staff resources to do so.  Councilmember Willmus questioned if those resources were even available, and as discussed at the PWETC meeting, he continued to stand fast by their recommendation that the city not pursue this venture.

 

Mayor Roe noted several existing shelters on Larpenteur Avenue, as part of that street improvement that were owned by the City of Roseville, and asked if the City sold advertising at those shelters.

 

While unable to provide their specific cost at this time, Mr. Culver advised that the city paid for maintenance of those shelters was paid to a third party contractor for snow removal, with city staff providing small-scale trash removal.  However, Mr. Culver reported the experienced ongoing issues in getting the contractor to respond to snow removal creating the need for city staff to provide back-up, creating additional cost to the city for that back-up service.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten, opining that she saw this as a partial function of city government to provide safe shelter in areas where ridership warranted it as noted.  Councilmember McGehee suggested the City Council keep in mind that as multi-family housing increased in Roseville and ridership continued to be encouraged citywide, without a bench and/or shelter in place, those riders were forced to stand on an icy pad or out in the elements, serving to discourage the goal for their use of public transport.  In her observation of families using public transport, Councilmember McGehee opined it seemed to her a type of amenity the city should provide; and if there was a way to find a third party contractor to manage, maintain and collect advertising revenue, she suggested the shelters be retained, perhaps through a public/private partnership.

 

Councilmember Etten stated his dismay that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) didn't provide snow service and trash pick-up, opining this fell into a safety issue for the City of Roseville and how it could positively support use of public transportation, trying to offset the cost through advertising revenue.  While it may serve a small number, Councilmember Etten opined that it did provide a public service; and opined he saw no reason a reliable third party contractor wouldn't be interested in pursuing maintenance and offsetting that with a portion of the advertising revenue.  However, Councilmember Etten stated he did
not propose to accept OutFront Media's suggested purchase price at $1,000 each, since the City would be saving them considerable money if they were forced to remove them. Councilmember Etten expressed his agreement with the comments in Mr. Roger Hess' email.

Motion

At approximately 10:00 p.m., Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, extending the meeting curfew to conclusion of discussion of this item.

                                                           

          Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

Specific to winter maintenance of the shelters, Mr. Culver clarified that the way they were laid out in the rights-of-way and opened to the roadway, after a county or city snowplow threw hard packed frozen snow into the shelter, it wasn't an easy task to clean them out of that snow, which was part of the issue with follow-up by the current contractor and lack of interest in providing this maintenance service.  Mr. Culver noted it could be difficult to clear the shelters, frequently requiring a front-end loader that could in turn create damage to the shelter.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding transfer by OutFront Media to Intersection Media; current three shelters owned by the city and maintained by the third-party contractor; and cost of glass panels at approximately $700 each; cost of trash removal and cleaning out leaves in the fall.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked the approximate annual cost per shelter for the City to maintain these shelters if it pursued Councilmember Etten's suggestion to retain four.

 

Without more specifics available, since the cost for existing shelter maintenance was wrapped into costs for other show removal areas provided by the third-party contractor, Mr. Culver estimated the cost at approximately $1,000 to $2,000 annually per shelter based on the contractor's annual rate, varying with snow fall frequency and weight.  At this time, Mr. Culver noted that the franchisee took on that risk offset by advertising revenue, but not currently available to the city in determining that potential risk.  If more shelters were obtained, Mr. Culver estimated the cost may be less annually, as a better rate could be spread among that number.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, that the city NOT purchase the twenty transit shelters, terminating the franchise terms and stipulating the franchisee's removal of the shelters; and at a future meeting consider the PWETC's recommendation related to existing pads and benches.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested the need, whether or not the shelters go away, what to do with what's left behind, expressing concern that there not be a tripping or other safety hazard with what was left.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need to provide staff with some guidance moving forward, specifically clarifying the motion to leave the pads in place.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he wasn't opposed to leaving he pads in place, based on the overall context of the PWETC's discussion and subsequent recommendation.  Councilmember Willmus further stated that by leaving the pads, it also afforded an attractive option to facilitate a future franchisee that may choose to locate there.

 

Councilmember Etten stated he wouldn't support the motion, opining it created a loss of service for many Roseville residents.  However, Councilmember Etten stated he liked leaving the pads in place for whatever reason in the future.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed that a pad would be better than standing on wet grass, as well as additional cost to landscape and finish off the areas.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten that this would be an unfortunate loss of service to some members of the community and not forward thinking by the city in pursuing more mass transit.

 

Mayor Roe admitted he was torn with this decision, and agreed with leaving the pads in place so the city could decide in the future its priority for providing more shelters.  Mayor Roe stated he would support the motion due to unknown costs in retaining the shelters, in addition to the city not incurring any costs in their removal through termination of the franchise.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver advised that the franchisee's insurance runs out today, he anticipated they would remove the shelters as quickly as possible.

 

Motion restated per discussion

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, that the city NOT purchase the twenty transit shelters, terminating the franchise terms and stipulating the franchisee's removal of the shelters; with concrete pads to remain in place directing the franchisee to sheer off the anchor bolts at each shelter location at the time of removal subject to staff's inspection and approval; and at a future meeting consider the PWETC's recommendation related to existing pads and benches.

                                                           

                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: McGehee and Etten.

Motion carried.

 

15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.          Adopt 2016 City Council Priority Plan

 

16.          City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon distributed upcoming preliminary agenda items.

 

17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

18.         Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:13 p.m.

 

                                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.